Spread the love


by John Charlton

(Oct. 20, 2009) — Sometimes important facts are discovered on account of curious inquiries.  Circumstances to important invents also often shed light for investigators into the past.  In the course of an investigation into the circumstances of Obama’s alleged birth, The Post & Email stumbled upon what might be the magic key.

International Adoption program launched in Hawaii 9 months to-the-day before Obama “born”

At the beginning of Nov, 1960, The Chicago Tribune reports that the film ‘Bridge to the Sun’ Is Ready for Filming.  The lead actress (Caroll Baker?), the paper notes, will go to Honolulu, Hawaii, to give a WAIF benefit performance on Nov. 4, 1960, the very day, one supposes, that Barack Hussein Obama is allegedly conceived!

WAIF helped 50,000 foreign born children be adopted by U.S. Citizens.

The World Adoption International Fund (WAIF) is a charitable organization founded by Actress Jane Russel in 1955; the organization helps place adopted and foster children in homes.  According to the wic.org website:

Miss Russell championed the passage of the Federal Orphan Adoption Amendment of 1953, which allowed, for the first time, children of American servicemen born overseas to be placed for adoption in the United States The ensuing years have allowed single parents to adopt, for children to be moved across state lines for adoptive placement, and most recently, the implementation of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act which mandates the reform of the adoption and foster care system in all 50 states.

Allexperts.com has this to say about WAIF:

. . .an organization to place children with adoptive families that pioneered adoptions from foreign countries by Americans.

And it appears from this Los Angeles Times article from the spring of that year, that Royalty may have attended these benefits. Still another source claims WAIF was founded in 1951, where you can find the index of the Columbia Film News release on the 1957 WAIF Benefit Ball.

International & Transracial Adoption were in vogue in 1960-1

Additional historical information sheds light on the state of adoptions in the year of Obama’s birth.

The University of Oregon has published on line a historical archive on the history of adoptions.  One page at the site, speaks about international adoptions during this period:

During the 1950s, proxy adoptions, which allowed U.S. citizens to adopt in foreign courts in absentia, were the most widely publicized means of international adoption. They gained ground after 1955, when an evangelical couple from rural Oregon, Bertha and Harry Holt, adopted eight Korean War orphans. The Holts went on to arrange scores of adoptions for other Americans who shared their fervent belief that children could be brought from Korea to America with divine guidance.

Child welfare professionals hated this type of adoption, not because it was religious but because it lacked regulation. U.S. Children’s Bureau Chief Katherine Oettinger argued that children adopted from abroad were more likely to suffer abuse, neglect, and disruption because their adoptions circumvented minimum standards. “All of us respond to the idea of rescuing helpless children from the dragon of deprivation,” she agreed, but “problems in adoption are infinitely harder to resolve in an adoption which spans the ocean.” Between 1953 and 1962, Americans adopted 15,000 foreign children.

International adoptions often amounted to transracial adoptions since they brought Asian children into white American families. Directly at odds with matching, these adoptions paved the way for domestic transracial adoptions by making family formation across racial lines a conspicuous social issue for the first time. Pearl S. Buck was perhaps the most important public champion of parentless children of color born within and without the United States. She insisted that love made families—not race, religion, or national background. Outcome studies of international adoptees also prompted new thinking about the need for cultural sensitivity to such issues as language and national heritage. Concerns about whether foreign adoptees might bring about an American future with more interracial dating and marriage were common and urgent, indicating that earlier concerns about eugenics had not disappeared.

One form of foreign adoption, which skirted U.S. regulations was proxy adoptions:

During the 1950s, proxy adoptions were the most widely publicized means of international adoption. They allowed U.S. citizens to adopt in foreign courts by designating a proxy agent to act in their place. Thousands of children, especially from Japan, Greece, and Korea, were adopted in this way. Because these adoptees entered the United States as the legal children of parents who had never met them, proxies avoided the requirements of state laws and flouted the notion that child welfare was the dominant factor in adoption.

Proxy adoptions revealed how inadequate federal policy was in dealing with family-making across national borders. Until passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1961, which incorporated international adoption, the migration of foreign-born children to the U.S. had no place in permanent law. It was governed by a series of provisional refugee and displaced persons acts, beginning with a directive from President Truman in December 1945, that envisioned the entry of “eligible orphans” from war-torn countries as a temporary emergency and set quotas for that purpose. National concerns about immigration and unwillingness to interfere in the legal systems of sovereign nations meant that international adoptions were effectively exempted from the regulatory regime that had been laboriously put into place domestically.

Proxy adoptions epitomized the problem, as professionals saw it, that foreign children were given unequal legal protection and accorded few if any safeguards. Officials in the U.S Children’s Bureau, the Child Welfare Leargue of America, and the American Branch of International Social Service charged proxy peddlers, including Bertha and Harry Holt, with masterminding an unscrupulous, global mail-order baby racket and hiding behind humanitarian rhetoric. Transnational migrants needed the minimum standards mandated in most domestic adoptions: investigation, supervision, and probation. Professionals pointed to additional hazards in international adoption. Many foreign children—from Asia in particular—had spent lengthy periods in orphanages and needed special attention as a result. Professionals also claimed to possess crucial cultural awareness that amateurs lacked. They suggested that parents adopting foreign children needed basic education about children’s home countries, rudimentary language skills, and enlightened attitudes about a host of things from food and sleeping arrangements to neighborhood integration and interracial dating and marriage.

Proxy adoptions ignored all of this and left family-making up to faith and chance.


If Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother was impressed by the Actresses, Stars and Royalty who attended this Benefit to promote the adoption of foreign born children; is it impossible to suggest that she decided then and there to adopt a child, and in gratitude for WAIF financial assistance, chose a birth day for the adopted boy, which was exactly 9 months after the WAIF benefit in the very town in which she was living, Honolulu?  The laws were lax or non-existent; she could adopt a child from overseas, with WAIF financial assistance and without ever leaving the U.S.A..

Such an adoption program would explain the known anomalies about Obama’s birth story:

1. His personal claim of different birth times and places.

2. His mother’s ability to attend college and support a newborn.

3. His mother’s ability to travel to Washington State immediately after birth, yet not know how to change a diaper.

4. Barrack Hussein Obama Sr.’s indifference to the child, who was supposedly his son.

5. News reports and statements of friends that he was born in Kenya, Indonesia and/or Hawaii.

6.  Dr. Fukino’s statement in July, that there are “vital records”, in the plural, which establish his birth facts. (Hawaii law seals original certificate and regards the new one generated for adopted parents as the real one; repleat with a new birth place and date of birth, ostensibly.)

7. The famous, baby Obama on a blanket photo, without parents; in the style used in adoption records.

8. Might explain the cryptic remark that Stanley Ann Dunham made to a high school friend in Washington State, before moving to Hawaii:  “I can have a baby without getting married.”

Thus an adopted, foreign-born child, can truthfully say he was born in two places at two different times; because in one sense he refers to his natural birth, in the other to his legally recognized adoptive-birth.

Join the Conversation

No comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. What about the adoption records? Somewhere there are records on the babies who were adopted. If none of the names in question – Obama, Dunham, etc. are on the list, then we can be pretty sure Obama wasn’t adopted through that channel. However, if some of the records are sealed – ah hah -that would be a gotcha’ moment.

    My children were all born in the ’60s and their birth certificates had their footprint on them. That might have been a local or state thing, though. I understand a person’s footprint is an identifying mark just like a fingerprint.

  2. I hope that we the real people of the USA can force our congressmen and senators to delete the dual citizenship or birth right (born on US soil) type citizenships. The citizenship should be based on both parentage citizenship.

    We now have a president in place that through his czars is forcing our nation into debts far beyond recognition. I just hope that we can survive the remaining of his term. If he is so a foreign born then lets start the wheels rolling in exposing him and discrediting his movement. His czars don’t have to report to anyone but Obama. All appointed cabinet members have to also be responsible to the Congress and Senate. NOT THE CZARS!

    We also need some attorneys to look into the fact that it is unconstitution to force a people to buy healthinsurance or be penalized as per the new health care bill HR3200 that Reid, Peloski, Obama, and others are trying to force feed us.

    2010 elections are coming soon. 1/3 of the Congress and a large protion of the Senate is going to be up for re-election. Let’s get people in that will represent our wishes.

  3. …and what’s stated in my above comment means Orly would file a Motion for Summary Judgment since there’s no dispute that baby O’s dad was British/Kenyan citizen.

    No needed facts in dispute — enabling the court to make a decision strictly on the law — case closed!

    She probably already knows that, but just in case, please make sure she gets the message.

  4. None of this matters in the sense of trumping Obama’s (Sortero’s) own declaration to the world that his father is Barack Obama Sr. of British/Kenyan nationality on Barry’s birth — hence, by his own declaration he’s not a “natural born citizen” (requiring both citizen parents).

    Case closed.